A picture is worth a thousand words.

[Diogenes]

In the photo (?), the record label that was supposed to set the date of the photo is unreliable- probably released in ~1955. And, do I understand correctly that any people in the photo has not been identified as Obama's parents? Does this photo have any purpose at all, other than as a foil for this conspiracy?

Have I missed something. I have seen several crops, where is the entire photo? Also, the crops are from at least two separate times. The album in question is not on the end table in one, and the Zebra ceramic on the table is turned around. Were the photos several minutes apart, several months apart? without acknowledging that these are two separate photos, I am even more (if that is possible) suspicious of misleading manipulation.

Is this photo 9?) a certified true copy? After all, if you are arguing about authenticity of the birth certificate, shouldn't the 'evidence' you present meet the same test?

Dan Tibbets

Catching you up.


Anyway, the theory is that since it is Obama's mother being photographed naked in an apparently Christian home, that she obviously got knocked up by the guy taking the shots and therefore, Obama can't be the son of a Muslim. His dad ain't his dad. Dad must be Frank Davis, poet, jazz fan, porn lover, and a friend of the families. Plus, Obama has Frank's jutting jaw. Therefore, Obama is not the son of a foreign Muslim. Rather he is the son of an American Communist.

That's the theory.

Of course, we were supposed to still be waiting for more info from the investigatin' that was going on.

As weird as it sounds, it fits reality better than the "OFFICIAL" story, as told by Barack's Book. You also left out the part where the woman has a crooked tooth in the same location as Stanley Ann Dunham, making it virtually certain that it is she.

Neil Abercrombie himself can't remember ever seeing Stanley Ann with Barack, Before, During or After the marriage. Two weeks after Barack is born, she Takes off to Washington, only to return after he leaves. Funny marriage.

[Diogenes]

Final post here.

In 2008, Obama produced a legal and certified birth record which was good enough for anyone that mattered.

In 2011, Obama produced a legal and certified copy of the birth record on file which was good enough for anyone that mattered.

No one here matters

regards

If 2008 was so good, why did he feel the need to produce 2011? HMMM????

You contradict your own claim.


As for "Legal and Certified", that does not equal "Objectively True."


Funny bunch of scientists who prefers subjectivity to objectivity. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own set of facts.

[bcglorf]

I think we will eventually know if what is shown is the truth or not, but as long as they play silly games, I am not going to be very concerned by what they assert or attest.

As I said, I've given up on reasoning with you on this. I can't help myself though from discrediting your vehemence on it.

For those keeping track, you are calling Obama's release of his birth certificate, as requested by yourself and others like you, to be part of playing silly games.

At the same time, you take pictures of a naked woman resembling Obama's mother and present them as absolute evidence of his peculiar and questionable heritage.

When you talk about silly games, do you really understand the concept?

[Diogenes]

Cheap and peculiar gimicks don't impress me. Glad for you that you feel differently.

Funny, you seemed quite impressed by nude pics of someone's mommy as evidence for citizen ship. I'm not sure that gimmicaks get any more peculiar. They certainly don't get any cheaper.

If you're saying that Obama's momma is cheap, I didn't make her that way. I merely pointed out the evidence of it. Perhaps you would have regarded it as more persuasive if it had been printed on Green hash paper?

[Diogenes]

I think we will eventually know if what is shown is the truth or not, but as long as they play silly games, I am not going to be very concerned by what they assert or attest.

As I said, I've given up on reasoning with you on this. I can't help myself though from discrediting your vehemence on it.

For those keeping track, you are calling Obama's release of his birth certificate, as requested by yourself and others like you, to be part of playing silly games.

There are a host of people calling fraud on what he released, some of them with quite extensive credentials and quite thorough analysis, but yeah, I consider making any changes to an original document to be playing games. Adding something that was not originally there is peculiar.

At the same time, you take pictures of a naked woman resembling Obama's mother and present them as absolute evidence of his peculiar and questionable heritage.

She resembles her right down to the same crooked tooth in the same place in her mouth. Dental records USED to be a pretty good proof of identification, I guess nowadays, not so much huh?

Of course there COULD be TWO women who look exactly alike and have a crooked tooth in the same spot. I wonder what the odds of that are?

When you talk about silly games, do you really understand the concept?

Yeah, it's running for President knowing full well that only Natural Born Citizens are allowed to do so, then hemming and hawing about releasing a document, then eventually releasing a peculiar little rump and demanding everyone accept it. It's getting someone like Nancy Pelosi to sign documents Attesting you are eligible for the office, when SHE hasn't even seen the D@mn birth certificate! It's spending a Fortune and letting a man lose his pension and go to prison just so you can play a "joke" on people?

Finally, it's kowtowing to a Media Blowhard and releasing a document at his bidding, only to alter it in such a way that it's provokes MORE questions.

Yeah, that whole things is pretty silly. The silliest aspect of all is that Most people claim to see the Emperor's clothes.

[bcglorf]

Dental records USED to be a pretty good proof of identification

And by dental records you mean pornographic photographs...

Certified birth certificates used to be pretty good proof of identity too, but here you still are.

The silliest aspect of all is that Most people claim to see the Emperor's clothes.

Oh it gets sillier. The rest of the people claim their proof as having seen the Emperor's mother without hers.

[Ivy Matt]

I'm not sure what this proves. I don't really think it proves anything. But, since recent commentary on this thread seems to have ignored it, I'm going to post it again:

[Diogenes]

Dental records USED to be a pretty good proof of identification

And by dental records you mean pornographic photographs...

I notice you do not address the point. That is because you looked and you realize what I said is true. The fact that your response is snark means you have no real response. I win the point.

Certified birth certificates used to be pretty good proof of identity too, but here you still are.

Just like the testimony of a witness. It is accepted until it's impeached. I know this concept is beyond your understanding, but so is much of reality I perceive.

The silliest aspect of all is that Most people claim to see the Emperor's clothes.

Oh it gets sillier. The rest of the people claim their proof as having seen the Emperor's mother without hers.

Yes, the first President in History with a Naked mother on the internet. Obviously the fault is with those who noticed. We should have pretended she was a lady, in the same manner that many pretend he is competent. Neither is true of course.

[Diogenes]

I'm not sure what this proves. I don't really think it proves anything. But, since recent commentary on this thread seems to have ignored it, I'm going to post it again:

That' is obviously not real. If it were REAL, it would have been printed on green hash paper like Obama's birth certificate.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all get our "truth" printed on little pieces of paper and certified by the state? I know it would save ME a lot of trouble. Perhaps someday *I* will live in that little world. I expect to get old and senile eventually. Perhaps then I will be able to appreciate bcglorf's thinking.


http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2527481


We have always been at war with Oceania

[bcglorf]

The fact that your response is snark means you have no real response. I win the point.

Absolutely. I concede the argument to you. I have failed to demonstrate the difference between a pornographic photo and a dental record. Obviously meaning you win by default.

You and Charlie can just keep on winning too, you guys are unbeatable and guys like me just can't process it.

[seedload]

Final post here.

In 2008, Obama produced a legal and certified birth record which was good enough for anyone that mattered.

In 2011, Obama produced a legal and certified copy of the birth record on file which was good enough for anyone that mattered.

No one here matters

regards

If 2008 was so good, why did he feel the need to produce 2011? HMMM????

You contradict your own claim.

No contradiction at all. The people that mattered changed. In 2008 they were Clinton/McCain. In 2011, the person that matters is apparently Trump. Maybe by 2012 you will matter. It will take a lot of work. <edit> when I wrote this, I meant that you will matter to Obama in the context of his actions in the future. I was talking about the "creating a groundswell aspect of these kinds of discussions. Thus the lot of work comment. This is not a general comment about you at all. I was speaking in the context of the discussion about mattering on a national scale. On re-reading, it didn't read that was, thus this edit.</edit>

Now, about contradictions, explain this one.

I'm fairly confident that Barack Sr. was NOT at the hospital for the birth. This is why his age is listed wrong on the Birth Certificate. He never acted like the Father of Barack, and i'm pretty sure he isn't.

If, as you state, Barack Sr's age is wrong on the certificate because he wasn't at the hospital "for the birth" (his mom didn't know the age AT THE HOSPITAL AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH) then why don't you believe that the Birth Certificate needed to be altered to change the name of the father?

If the age is wrong because Sr wasn't at the hospital, then the wrong age was put on the original.

If Sr is on the original, even with the wrong age, then why do you claim an alteration?

That' is obviously not real. If it were REAL, it would have been printed on green hash paper like Obama's birth certificate.

OMG! Still?!?! No one is trying to represent that the original is on green hash paper. JEEZ! Copied ONTO green security paper and certified. This is the original copied onto plain paper, sans certification.

I have been pulled under the bridge by a troll and I can't get out.

[ladajo]

I gotta ask, why wasn't Sr. at the hosptial for the birth? I am guessing he was within 5 miles of it.

[Diogenes]

The fact that your response is snark means you have no real response. I win the point.

Absolutely. I concede the argument to you. I have failed to demonstrate the difference between a pornographic photo and a dental record. Obviously meaning you win by default.

You and Charlie can just keep on winning too, you guys are unbeatable and guys like me just can't process it.

Still trying to put on a bravado face eh?


Easier than refuting the point I'll wager.

[bcglorf]

The fact that your response is snark means you have no real response. I win the point.

Absolutely. I concede the argument to you. I have failed to demonstrate the difference between a pornographic photo and a dental record. Obviously meaning you win by default.

You and Charlie can just keep on winning too, you guys are unbeatable and guys like me just can't process it.

Still trying to put on a bravado face eh?


Easier than refuting the point I'll wager.

The point(s) can't be refuted, I'm just reminding you what they are:

1. Pornography resembling your mother is as valid for identification as dental records.
2. Official certified copies of birth certificates are as valid for identification as toilet paper.

[Diogenes]

Final post here.

In 2008, Obama produced a legal and certified birth record which was good enough for anyone that mattered.

In 2011, Obama produced a legal and certified copy of the birth record on file which was good enough for anyone that mattered.

No one here matters

regards

If 2008 was so good, why did he feel the need to produce 2011? HMMM????

You contradict your own claim.

No contradiction at all. The people that mattered changed. In 2008 they were Clinton/McCain. In 2011, the person that matters is apparently Trump. Maybe by 2012 you will matter. It will take a lot of work.

Political expediency doesn't define my reality. I prefer the objective unvarnished sort. If the political reality changed once, perhaps it will change again, as you have pointed out.

Now, about contradictions, explain this one.

I'm fairly confident that Barack Sr. was NOT at the hospital for the birth. This is why his age is listed wrong on the Birth Certificate. He never acted like the Father of Barack, and i'm pretty sure he isn't.

If, as you state, Barack Sr's age is wrong on the certificate because he wasn't at the hospital "for the birth" (his mom didn't know the age AT THE HOSPITAL AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH) then why don't you believe that the Birth Certificate needed to be altered to change the name of the father?

You are mistaking a non certainty for a certainty. I don't KNOW if the birth certificate was altered or not. It may in fact be entirely correct. (as far as such things ever are.) I do not have a "belief" that it is incorrect, I have a belief that those who produced it have been playing some sort of game and are continuing to do so.

There was no good reason to reproduce anything other than the exact image of the original document and then proclaim it to be an exact and true copy of the original. This Multi-layered, masked off, rubber stamped, Weasel worded peculiar looking thing inspires none of the confidence that a simple image of the original would have.

It has numerous anomalies that simply make no sense if someone is actually trying to end the controversy, but make perfect sense if the desire is to keep it stirred up.

(Actual image of two of the layers.)


Funny how they printed it on green hash paper with white spaces in all the correct places. I would have thought that the green hash marks would also be in the lettering.

If the age is wrong because Sr wasn't at the hospital, then the wrong age was put on the original.

I'm not saying it wasn't. I am saying a man knows his own age. If a man were present, you would think he would have written down the correct age. If he were not, it's easy to see how someone else could have gotten it wrong.

If Sr is on the original, even with the wrong age, then why do you claim an alteration?

I am not claiming an alteration. What is on that document may very well be what was written on it in 1961. My complaint is that they have left no means of verifying that it hasn't been altered, or that it is in fact the Original document. A small matter to you, but to me it is the difference between knowing something for sure, and taking someone else's word for it.

As far as i'm concerned, that document is bread and circuses, even if it's real.

That' is obviously not real. If it were REAL, it would have been printed on green hash paper like Obama's birth certificate.

OMG! Still?!?! No one is trying to represent that the original is on green hash paper. JEEZ! Copied ONTO green security paper and certified. This is the original copied onto plain paper, sans certification.

I have been pulled under the bridge by a troll and I can't get out.

And your point is that the image is therefore not that of the original? Why didn't *I* think of that?